Adventures in Online Cruising

HIV- UB 2

The practice of announcing and dating negative test results
may have started because it makes it seem as if the claim can
be backed up by evidence. Yet it is just as pointless as claiming
to be DDF. We know that HIV transmission is most likely
when the viral load is especially high. This happens twice in the
entire course of the disease -- when one is nearing death (and
unlikely to be sexually active) and immediately after infection
(when one is sexually active) and when the commonly used test
(which measures antibodies to the virus rather than the virus
itself) will come out negative. So when people tell you that they
are HIV negative as of this morning, it could just as well mean
that they are in fact highly infectious.

Simply said, unless someone has tested negative three
months after the last sexual activity and has not had sex
since the test, you just can't be absolutely sure. Of course, people can always decide to stick to safer sexual activities.
But in that case, why would they need to know their partner's
HIV status in the first place?

Advertisement

So why do people choose to believe someone who claims
to be HIV negative when such belief is unsure at best and
foolish at worst? That's like asking why people start smoking
or why some text while driving. I haven't done the research,
but my feeling is that "DDF" and "negative as of ..." are just
ways to prevent any discussion of HIV because the topic is
such a killjoy. This has nothing to do with lowering risk but
is really meant to remove the very idea of risk from people's
minds during sex.

HIV disclosure, whether required
by law or expected as an ethical matter,
is part of a system of prevention
and depends on the idea of individual
responsibility. But these conversations
are often based on mistaken
beliefs about risk. So why are they still
expected? Do people really believe in
the power of this system?

I once called a guy on what seemed
to me an odd contradiction in his online
profile. To the question of whether he
practiced safer sex (a far more useful
bit of information than HIV status)
he had selected "Always". Yet on the
list of "Things I'm into" he included
"Barebacking". This is in fact a very
common occurrence. When I asked
what he meant, he explained, "When
the guy is 100% percent sure he's clean
I don't use condoms, but otherwise I
always do." Any sign of irritation or
baff lement on my part could have jeopardized
the hook-up so I kept quiet.
After asking more questions, I came
to the conclusion that certain people
do not understood barebacking to be
inherently risky. To them, it all depends
on the other guy's status. That seems
logical, but is the internet in general,
and cruising sites in particular, a place
to turn to when looking for the truth? The reality is that a
negative status is often far less certain than a positive one.

But who really cares if what people write in their online
profiles sounds dumb or even AIDS-phobic as long as we all
get laid, right? Should we take such ignorance and rudeness
as outright rejections? Maybe not. What these online cruisers
really offer to other cruisers, whether they mean to or not, is
the possibility to read written mentions of HIV as unwritten
invitations not to care about it. But to say in an online profile
that you don't really care about a partner's HIV status may
drive some potential playmates away because they will assume
you're HIV positive yourself and are attracting others for the
same reason. To say you are HIV negative or to request an HIVnegative
partner when you really don't believe what a potential
hook-up says could mean that you're using the system to fight
the structures that oppress us.

Conclusion

In summary, there are five basic reasons that questioning partners
about HIV status before casual sex is not the right approach:

The information is useless. A stranger has little incentive
to be honest with another stranger, and since no emotional
bond exists, there may be no concern for the other's
well-being.

They may not know they have HIV. Even if the person is
concerned for your safety, over half of all new infections may
come from people who do not know they have HIV. And even
if they claim a recent negative test, they could be in the process
of seroconverting, in which case their HIV viral load would be
extremely high.

It could lead to greater risk. Once you accept the assumption
that someone is negative, you may do things that you
feel are unsafe. Particularly in the heat of passion, very
risky behaviors like unprotected anal sex may be practiced
because the partners believe they are both negative. This is
a particular problem in new relationships, in which the condoms
often come off quickly because both partners think
they are negative. Many people have acquired HIV in this
scenario, often because the positive partner did not know
he had HIV.

It really shouldn't matter. It's actually quite easy to prevent
HIV transmission during sex, by taking some simple precautions
(such as knowing how to use a condom correctly or
avoiding high-risk behaviors like anal sex). If the person with
HIV has an undetectable viral load and uses a condom, the
chance of transmission is nonexistent.

It encourages nondisclosure. People with HIV learn very
quickly that disclosing will limit their chances of casual
sex and will often lead to painful rejection. Every time
negative people reject positive people, they train them not
to disclose.

To return to the doctor from L.A., he never bothered to ask
my status and was willing to play safely with someone without
any mention of HIV. Yet he couldn't bring himself to do it once
he knew. In the end, it wasn't the possibility of HIV itself that
was the problem, nor even a lack of knowledge about the risks of
transmission and how to minimize them. The problem was -- as
always seems to be the case in any don't-ask-don't-tell situation --
knowledge itself.

Perhaps one solution to the problem of online attempts at
serosorting is for hook-up sites to stop including that field in
their sign-up pages. People can add the info if they choose, but
including it in a menu of profile choices makes it seem as reliable
as age, weight, or hair color (and of course, people never lie
about those traits online). Barring that, a warning attached to
each profile about the dangers of basing sexual decisions on a
person's claimed status might at least alert users to the dangers
of trusting such info. It might even encourage more people with
HIV to disclose before sex.

David Caron is Professor of French and Women's Studies at the
University of Michigan. His forthcoming book is tentatively titled:
Sharing HIV: Tact, Contact, and Disclosure.

(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Beforeadding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

The Body is a service of Remedy Health Media, LLC, 750 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. The Body and its logos are trademarks of Remedy Health Media, LLC, and its subsidiaries, which owns the copyright of The Body's homepage, topic pages, page designs and HTML code. General Disclaimer: The Body is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services. The information provided through The Body should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, consult your health care provider.